Perioperative surgical complications of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a single-center experience

Clinical article

Restricted access

Object

Since its original description in 1982, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has grown in popularity as a means for achieving circumferential fusion. The authors sought to define the perioperative complication rates of the TLIF procedure at a large academic medical center.

Methods

For all eligible patients from a consecutive series of 531 TLIF procedures, the institution's complication database and the medical record were reviewed to identify complications. Medical, nonprocedure-related complications such as myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism were excluded due to inconsistency in the recording of these complications in the database. Rates were calculated for each type of complication, and subgroup analysis was performed to investigate the effect of previous lumbar surgery, and of multilevel versus single-level interbody fusion on complication rates. Odds ratios were calculated and evaluated using chi-square analysis.

Results

Five hundred thirty-one patients underwent a TLIF procedure during the study period. Two hundred forty-four patients (46%) had undergone a previous lumbar operation. Interbody fusion was performed at 1 level in 317 patients, at 2 levels in 188 patients, at 3 levels in 24 patients, and at 4 levels in 2 patients. One hundred thirty-five patients (25.4%) had at least one procedure-related complication. The most common complications were durotomy (14.3% of patients) and infection (3.8% of patients). Symptomatic screw misplacement (2.1% of patients) and interbody cage migration (1.8% of patients) were less common complications. The overall complication rate was greater in those patients who had undergone a previous operation (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.18–2.59; p < 0.01) and in those who had multilevel surgery (OR 1.54, 95 % CI 1.04–2.28; p = 0.03), and the incidence of durotomy was higher in patients who had a previous operation (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.07–2.87; p = 0.03). These differences were statistically significant. Durotomy also occurred more frequently in patients who had multilevel interbody fusion (OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.92–2.43; p = 0.13). A trend toward higher infection rates in those patients who underwent multilevel interbody fusion was observed (OR 1.5, 95% CI 0.62–3.68; p = 0.49), but this was not statistically significant. Infection rates did not differ between revision and first-time surgeries.

Conclusions

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion has gained widespread popularity as a procedure for achieving arthrodesis in the lumbar spine. Complications occurred more often in patients undergoing revision surgery or multilevel interbody fusion. Durotomy and infection were the most common complications in this series.

Abbreviations used in this paper: ALIF = anterior lumbar interbody fusion; PLIF = posterior lumbar interbody fusion; TLIF = transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.
Article Information

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to: David O. Okonkwo, M.D., Ph.D., Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 200 Lothrop Street, Suite B-400, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213. email: okonkwodo@upmc.edu.Please include this information when citing this paper: published online October 14, 2011; DOI: 10.3171/2011.9.SPINE11373.

© AANS, except where prohibited by US copyright law.

Headings
References
  • 1

    Ammerman JMAmmerman MD: Wrong-sided surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 9:1051062008. (Letter)

  • 2

    Anda SAakhus SSkaanes KOSande ESchrader H: Anterior perforations in lumbar discectomies. A report of four cases of vascular complications and a CT study of the prevertebral lumbar anatomy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 16:54601991

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Aoki YYamagata MNakajima FIkeda YTakahashi K: Posterior migration of fusion cages in degenerative lumbar disease treated with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a report of three patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:E54E582009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Bierdrager EVan Rooij WJSluzewski M: Emergency stenting to control massive bleeding of injured iliac artery following lumbar disk surgery. Neuroradiology 46:4044062004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Chang CPLee WSLee SC: Left internal iliac artery and vein tear during microendoscopic lumbar discectomy—a case report. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 15:1551582006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Cloward RB: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion updated. Clin Orthop Relat Res 19316191985

  • 7

    Esses SISachs BLDreyzin V: Complications associated with the technique of pedicle screw fixation. A selected survey of ABS members. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18:223122391993

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Faraj AAWebb JK: Early complications of spinal pedicle screw. Eur Spine J 6:3243261997

  • 9

    Faundez AASchwender JDSafriel YGilbert TJMehbod AADenis F: Clinical and radiological outcome of anterior-posterior fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for symptomatic disc degeneration: a retrospective comparative study of 133 patients. Eur Spine J 18:2032112009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Gonzalvo AFitt GLiew Sde la Harpe DTurner PTon L: The learning curve of pedicle screw placement: how many screws are enough?. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:E761E7652009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Goyal NWimberley DWHyatt AZeiller SVaccaro ARHilibrand AS: Radiographic and clinical outcomes after instrumented reduction and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion of mid and high-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech 22:3213272009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Hacker RJ: Comparison of interbody fusion approaches for disabling low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:6606661997

  • 13

    Harms JRolinger H: [A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author's transl).]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 120:3433471982. (Ger)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Hee HTCastro FP JrMajd MEHolt RTMyers L: Anterior/posterior lumbar fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of complications and predictive factors. J Spinal Disord 14:5335402001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Houten JKPost NHDryer JWErrico TJ: Clinical and radiographically/neuroimaging documented outcome in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurg Focus 20:3E82006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Humphreys SCHodges SDPatwardhan AGEck JCMurphy RBCovington LA: Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:5675712001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Kosmopoulos VSchizas C: Pedicle screw placement accuracy: a meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:E111E1202007

  • 18

    Louis R: Fusion of the lumbar and sacral spine by internal fixation with screw plates. Clin Orthop Relat Res 20318331986

  • 19

    Lowe TGTahernia ADO'Brien MFSmith DA: Unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): indications, technique, and 2-year results. J Spinal Disord Tech 15:31382002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Matsuzaki HTokuhashi YMatsumoto FHoshino MKiuchi TToriyama S: Problems and solutions of pedicle screw plate fixation of lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 15:115911651990

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Mody MGNourbakhsh AStahl DLGibbs MAlfawareh MGarges KJ: The prevalence of wrong level surgery among spine surgeons. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:1941982008

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Nguyen HVAkbarnia BAvan Dam BERaiszadeh KBagheri RCanale S: Anterior exposure of the spine for removal of lumbar interbody devices and implants. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:244924532006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Papadoulas SKonstantinou DKourea HPKritikos NHaftouras NTsolakis JA: Vascular injury complicating lumbar disc surgery. A systematic review. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 24:1891952002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Potter BKFreedman BAVerwiebe EGHall JMPolly DW JrKuklo TR: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic results and complications in 100 consecutive patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 18:3373462005

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Raptis SQuigley FBarker S: Vascular complications of elective lower lumbar disc surgery. Aust N Z J Surg 64:2162191994

  • 26

    Rihn JAPatel RMakda JHong JAnderson DGVaccaro AR: Complications associated with single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 9:6236292009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Rosenberg WSMummaneni PV: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: technique, complications, and early results. Neurosurgery 48:5695752001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Roy-Camille RSaillant GMazel C: Internal fixation of the lumbar spine with pedicle screw plating. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2037171986

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Salehi SATawk RGanju ALaMarca FLiu JCOndra SL: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: surgical technique and results in 24 patients. Neurosurgery 54:3683742004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Schuster JMRechtine GNorvell DCDettori JR: The influence of perioperative risk factors and therapeutic interventions on infection rates after spine surgery: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:9 SupplS125S1371976

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Suk SILee CKKim WJLee JHCho KJKim HG: Adding posterior lumbar interbody fusion to pedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion after decompression in spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:2102201997

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    Taneichi HSuda KKajino TMatsumura AMoridaira HKaneda K: Unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and bilateral anterior-column fixation with two Brantigan I/F cages per level: clinical outcomes during a minimum 2-year follow-up period. J Neurosurg Spine 4:1982052006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

    Villavicencio ATBurneikiene SBulsara KRThramann JJ: Perioperative complications in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior-posterior reconstruction for lumbar disc degeneration and instability. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:92972006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    Wang JZhou YZhang ZFLi CQZheng WJLiu J: Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J 19:178017842010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35

    Whitecloud TS IIIButler JCCohen JLCandelora PD: Complications with the variable spinal plating system. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 14:4724761989

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36

    Whitecloud TS IIIRoesch WWRicciardi JE: Transforaminal interbody fusion versus anterior-posterior interbody fusion of the lumbar spine: a financial analysis. J Spinal Disord 14:1001032001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37

    Wu CYHung YNLiu YHKo PJ: Endovascular treatment of iatrogenic iliac artery disruption in lumbar disc surgery. Ann Vasc Surg 23:255.e7255e112009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
TrendMD
Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 245 239 16
Full Text Views 121 95 2
PDF Downloads 153 84 4
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0
PubMed
Google Scholar